tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54499562198672812942018-02-06T16:04:58.479-05:00The Paltry PressSeth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.comBlogger348125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-33879827425531985802012-08-22T13:02:00.002-04:002012-08-22T13:02:16.814-04:00The EndThis is the final post on The Paltry Press. It's been a good run, but you can see its activity has idled. Fear not; there are new exciting projects brewing. Farewell.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/RqZf0fBhs6E" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-end.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-8614635909403081412012-05-17T19:53:00.001-04:002012-05-17T19:54:03.183-04:00International trade in health care among governmentsOn an <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/01/dean_baker_on_t.html">episode of EconTalk from a while back</a>, Dean Baker offers a really cool idea:<br /><div><blockquote><b>Baker:</b> I actually support what I consider a more market solution, in the sense that I'd like to see more trade in health care, and there are a few different ways you could do that. One is you could let people who are on Medicare, who by definition almost--they aren't all retired but most of them are--let them buy into the health care systems of other countries that have lower costs. Let them buy into England's health care system or Germany's and pocket half the difference. So, if the difference, and you look at the projections, 10-20 years out, differences are in many cases over $10,000, even $20,000 a year depending on which country you look at, and suppose you said: Let people pocket the difference.</blockquote><blockquote><b>Roberts:</b> How would we do that? How would that work?&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Baker:</b> Well, we'd have to negotiate a deal with these countries.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Roberts:</b> They are subsidizing their own people; they are not going to want to subsidize us.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Baker:</b> No, no, no they are full cost.&nbsp;They are full cost to cure.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Roberts:</b>&nbsp;Oh, because they are cheaper.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Baker:</b> Yes.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Roberts:</b> Or even higher--110%.</blockquote><blockquote><b>Baker:</b> Yes, give them a premium, absolutely; you'd make it worth their while. So, let's just throw some numbers out. Let's say it cost $6000 a year to give a person over 65 care in the United Kingdom, and let's say it cost $15,000 here. So, we'll give them $7000. A thousand to pocket. $8000 left. So, someone goes to the United Kingdom to get their care, they get $4000 and the U.S. taxpayers save $4000.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Roberts:</b> That's going to be hard to implement, obviously, because most people don't want to go to the United Kingdom for their health care--for a bunch of reasons.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Baker:</b> Understood, but a lot would.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote><b>Roberts:</b> Because you'd let them pocket the difference. That's clever, interesting.</blockquote>It's a clever idea, but don't hold your breath for&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget-maximizing_model">budget-maximizing bureaucrats</a> in the U.S. to drive such innovation.</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/efi7GrFUTY0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2012/05/international-trade-in-health-care.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-36460445359497704242011-07-07T10:00:00.001-04:002011-07-07T10:00:06.108-04:00Marginalism, inequality, and security costsAn article from <a href="http://c4ss.org/content/4043">Anna Morgenstern</a>, cited by <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/i2cwo/question_for_an_anarchocapitalist/c20cawx">a comment on Reddit</a>, claims that massive capital accumulation in anarchy is impossible because:<div><ol><li>States subsidize police protection of private property, making possible absentee ownership of property over large geographical areas. Without state-subsidized police protection, absentee ownership would be impossible.</li><li>A self-interested militia raised in anarchy for national defense, comprised of the middle class, defending from an aggressor state, would not protect the property of billionaires.</li><li>The state creates fractional reserve banking, which enriches the wealthy at the expense of the public.</li><li>Central banking enriches the wealthy at the expense of the public.</li><li>Intellectual property is a state-imposed rent.</li></ol><div>Claim 1 almost sounds plausible at first blush, but it's actually glaringly wrong, because it denies marginalism. As people grow their wealth, they are constantly bargaining with others for command of resources. Employees benefit from a business owner's investment capital, on the margin. An employee benefits from each additional unit of labor and skill they sell on a free market. We should expect that their salaries and wages will be competed up to how much value they create in the firm. The antagonism between employees and owners in leftist and syndicalist thought is overstated, because employment decisions incorporate opportunity cost.</div><div><br /></div><div>Employees aren't always on the brink of seizing business assets from an owner, and a state police force isn't the driving deterrent. Employees benefit on the margin from their own employment. If employees really sought to seize business assets, why wouldn't they simply open shop with their own investment capital? Entrepreneurs serve their employees by taking on risk and offering up their own investment capital so that more risk-averse employees don't need to.</div><div><br /></div><div>Police forces, whether state-run or private, exist to take advantage of the division of labor, and as such, coordinate economic activity far beyond any one economic agent's scope. A spontaneous order coordinates more activity than a planned order, and a public police force doesn't provide the Pareto-efficient amount of protection, but it does offer gains above and beyond autarkic production. It's the division of labor in protection provision that allows for absentee ownership, not distortions from the state, and absentee ownership is desirable because it allows capitalists to generate more wealth.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Claim 2 is trivially false. National defense is not a coherent concept for a stateless region. There cannot be national defense for a nonexistent nation. To introduce an aggressor state into the thought experiment is theorizing outside the scope of anarchy, but the same denial of marginalism from Claim 1 also underlies Claim 2. Free economic agents allocate the efficient amount of protection of private property, on the margin, whether to defend against jealous employees or external aggressor states. If a militia can form at all, and members of the militia are motivated by the protection of private property, the militia would protect the assets that people find valuable on the margin, which includes assets owned by billionaires.</div><div><br /></div><div>The falsity is the idea that the wealthy just hoard their wealth. In reality, wealth isn't so liquid. Wealth is used by people other than the owners to profit through investment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Claim 3 is a bizarre old Rothbardian myth, which <a href="http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/">Selgin</a> has thoroughly debunked.</div><div><br /></div><div>Claim 4 is almost true. Central banking is a way for the politically connected, not the wealthy per se, to extract rents from the public.</div><div><br /></div><div>Claim 5 is plausible.</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/Q5zwjT1_mp4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2011/07/marginalism-inequality-and-security.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-29433639604048704352011-06-04T10:00:00.001-04:002011-06-30T02:21:33.199-04:00Why Teetotalism?I don't drink alcohol or take any drugs recreationally, and never have. I realize that that puts me in a fringe minority of the population, especially because it's not for any kind of religious reason. The drive to use psychoactive substances is nearly <a href="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/09/12/jacob-sullum/true-temperance/">universal</a>, so I'm an outlier. Why do I value personal teetotalism?<br /><br />I consider <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/20812">Penn Jillette</a> an inspiration for this decision. Penn's libertarianism obviously doesn't imply personal or political teetotalism, but personal teetotalism does offer a solid rhetorical point for libertarianism: that one can choose not to consume even a legal substance like alcohol highlights that the primary basis of a choice to use a drug isn't the law. Having this rhetorical point isn't a reason for Penn or me to choose teetotalism, but it is an additional compatible argument that disconfirms the omnipresent claims that libertarians advocate for drug legalization only out of a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/libertarians-arent-all-selfish-jerks/240757/">selfish</a>, personal desire to use drugs.<br /><br />One core reason for Penn's teetotalism is simply that he wants to be smarter, and using psychoactive drugs recreationally obviously makes you stupider, even if just temporarily. James Randi, who is an inspiration to Penn Jillette for his scientific skepticism, is also a teetotaler. Randi <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQBljC5RIo#t=8m11s">articulates</a> part of my justification for teetotalism: having control over your mind and understanding and addressing reality as accurately as possible. This is a big part of my justification. Once you study a bit of the literature on heuristics and biases, you'll realize that your own map of reality is already hopelessly flawed. It seems base to me to handicap myself even more.<br /><br />It is often said that the young drink to rebel. I just never picked up this habit. Maybe it was just to express my own individuality, rebelling against the popular notion of youthful rebellion? I have always been weirded out by conformity.<br /><br />It's not just that as a utilitarian I want to appreciate and understand every precious moment of my own existence. It's also that as a materialist atheist I recognize that consciousness arises from a physical process in the brain only. Taking a psychoactive substance isn't modifying the access point to the mind; it is modifying the mind itself.<br /><br />How does this play out socially? I find that drinkers roughly fall into two categories, those who use alcohol as a <span style="font-style:italic;">substitute</span> for experience, and those who use alcohol as a <span style="font-style:italic;">complement</span> for experience. I should caveat that obviously one person can be a different kind of drinker at different points in time.<br /><br />Some people drink as a <span style="font-style:italic;">substitute</span> for meaning and happiness. Unsatisfied with their classes, jobs, careers, or personal lives, they drink for a temporary escape. These kinds of drinkers have little to look forward to other than a break from an otherwise unfulfilled life.<br /><br />Others use drinking as a <span style="font-style:italic;">complement</span> to their own lives. Already having attained, or at least successfully striving for meaning, purpose, and value in their lives, personal and professional, they use alcohol to enhance their lives, enjoying the physiological effects for their own sake, enjoying the taste of the drinks for their own sake, and perhaps using alcohol as a social lubricant.<br /><br />I think that substitute drinkers often suffer low self-esteem, and that they have a hard time socializing with principled teetotalers like myself. In a social situation, a substitute drinker feels threatened by a composed, happy teetotaler who doesn't use alcohol as a crutch. By juxtaposition, the teetotaler's very presence calls attention to the substitute drinker's void by not validating the substitute drinker's behavior. Since they're Insecure, substitute drinkers more often seek to socialize with other substitute drinkers to validate their decisions. Humans, after all, do have biological drives for conformity.<br /><br />There's a habit among substitute drinkers to use the nuances of drinks as a vehicle for vacuous conversation. I find excessive deliberation about a drink's attributes, or talk about what a drink says about a person, endlessly insipid.<br /><br />Complement drinkers on the other hand, well-adjusted and secure, can socialize with teetotalers quite well, because complement drinkers are not threatened by teetotalers. Complement drinkers can be interesting, can abstract, and can carry on conversations about more interesting things than the drink they're holding and what exists only in their immediate vicinity.<br /><br />Exclusively socializing with other non-religious teetotalers would be a quixotic task, since there are too few, so I do my best to seek out complement drinkers instead of substitute drinkers.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Cross-posted to <a href="http://whiskeyandcarkeys.org/2011/06/30/why-teetotalism/">Whiskey and Car Keys</a></span><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/kcwwsF6vVe8" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com2http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-teetotalism.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-60424102146869646202011-03-22T14:42:00.001-04:002011-03-22T15:08:44.438-04:00The Individual Mandate Is UnconstitutionalMy entry for the Independent Women's Forum contest:<br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zk1Z9Olih3s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/7NFSnSKZw4M" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2011/03/individual-mandate-is-unconstitutional.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-76993006412438115022011-03-22T14:39:00.001-04:002011-03-22T14:41:13.916-04:00Three Ways to Fix U.S. HealthcareJeff Miron <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmmw5f0cGE4">explains</a> well.<br /><object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lmmw5f0cGE4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lmmw5f0cGE4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/P-qexT3udk8" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2011/03/three-ways-to-fix-us-healthcare.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-7146575339353073702011-01-17T12:04:00.002-05:002011-01-17T12:14:28.163-05:00Recent Media DietMy recent media diet has consisted of:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Mind-Creates-P-S/dp/0061336467/">The Language Instinct</a></li><li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/SuperFreakonomics-Cooling-Patriotic-Prostitutes-Insurance/dp/0060889578/">SuperFreakonomics</a></li><li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Price-Everything-Parable-Possibility-Prosperity/dp/0691143358/">The Price of Everything</a></li><li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Themselves-Matters/dp/1933633913/">The Cleanest Race</a></li><li>Seasons 1 and 2 of <a href="http://www.vbs.tv/watch/thumbs-up">Thumbs Up</a>, on <a href="http://www.vbs.tv/watch/thumbs-up">Netflix<br /></a></li><li><a href="http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel">The Vice Guide to Travel</a>, also on <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/VICE_VBStv/status/23459847756316672">Netflix</a><br /></li></ul>Comments and suggestions are welcome.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/WD32W0oOWXk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2011/01/recent-media-diet.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-14250484115958078172010-08-29T00:30:00.007-04:002010-08-29T01:40:25.479-04:00A couple of the many reasons why libertarianism and socialism are at oddsRoss <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_M4wolKAY">suggests</a> that libertarianism and socialism may not actually be at odds.<br /><br /><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3y_M4wolKAY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3y_M4wolKAY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></embed></object><br /><br />So, I have a couple of objections.<br /><ol><li>One libertarian goal Ross posits is realizing a world in which people retain the full value of their labor. I fear that this is based on Kevin Carson's modern advocacy of the Labor Theory of Value. I haven't read Carson yet myself, but his basic idea as described to me is intriguing. It is plausible that it would be strategically productive to focus on the unjustness of rents captured through statist legal arrangements, but why ignore the Austrian contributions of subjective value? Advocacy for workers to retain the value of their labor doesn't make much sense, since it's not labor that's valuable; such a standard would be arbitrary, since the Labor Theory of Value is simply not true.<br /></li><br /><li>Class warfare is wildly wrong. Yes, there is economic inequality among different groups of individuals, but this is the wrong analytical tool to evaluate societal welfare and social mobility. In the United States, if you track the poorest quintile in different time periods, then you will seem to notice a class of people who are stuck in poverty. However, If you actually track <span style="font-style: italic;">individuals</span> from the lowest quintile and follow those <span style="font-style: italic;">individuals</span> into future time periods, you'll see a high degree of mobility into richer quintiles. Assessing the <span style="font-style: italic;">group</span> is fallacious. It would be like checking to see what percentage of second-graders could do calculus in 1990, and comparing that to the percentage of second-graders that could do calculus in 2000. What you want to check in 2000 is the percentage of high school seniors, who were the second-graders in 1990, and see what percentage of those seniors can do calculus.</li></ol>Aside from these quibbles, I do admire Ross's good will. One phenomenon that Penn Jillette <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG6JYsm1GmM">has noticed</a> is for folks to believe that their political opponents actually agree, but advocate the opposite because they're evil. Thomas Sowell has attributed that as characteristic of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056/">unconstrained vision</a>. Ross certainly does <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> fall into this trap. I admire the socialist drive to do good, but it is misguided, since it is generally ignorant of economics.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/0XIHU29qv38" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com3http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/08/couple-of-many-reasons-why.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-23219627323078794072010-06-04T13:59:00.003-04:002010-06-04T14:06:04.608-04:00Whiskey and Car Keys and the evolution of The Paltry PressRecently <a href="http://whiskeyandcarkeys.wordpress.com/author/sethgoldin/">I've been blogging</a> primarily over on <a href="http://whiskeyandcarkeys.wordpress.com/">Whiskey and Car Keys</a>, which was <a href="http://whiskeyandcarkeys.wordpress.com/author/libertaaron/">Aaron's</a> brainchild to replace <a href="http://incessantdissent.wordpress.com/">Incessant Dissent</a>. I'm still trying to figure out what I'll blog about here. For now, I'm thinking that I'll use it for more esoteric or technical writing, but that's subject to change. Rest assured, though I haven't posted to The Paltry Press in a while, it is certainly not dead.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/BvDJWWFxGDk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/06/whiskey-and-car-keys-and-evolution-of.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-13890931974958348222010-06-04T13:36:00.003-04:002010-06-04T13:50:20.172-04:00Charles Murray on Ayn RandCharles Murray <a href="http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp">reviews the two recent biographies of Ayn Rand</a>. I haven't gotten around to reading them yet, but I really should. I'm particularly interested and surprised by the kinder, gentler Rand of the early 1950s.<br /><blockquote>Both biographers also describe a kinder, gentler Rand who was just as real as the fierce intellectual combatant. To Martin Anderson, Ronald Reagan's long-time advisor, she was a "pussycat," who alone among a crowd at a café noticed that Anderson couldn't get his package of cream open (he had a broken arm) and helped him prepare his coffee. Joan Kennedy Taylor, for whose wedding Rand was matron of honor, once told me about Rand shushing Joan's objections when a recently widowed friend talked about rejoining her husband in heaven. If it gave her comfort, Rand said, Joan had no business trying to convince her she was wrong. There are repeated examples in both biographies of the ways in which Rand could be a sensitive, loyal, and affectionate friend.</blockquote><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/18w_AFeSWP4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/06/charles-murray-on-ayn-rand.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-82326603026343319982010-04-20T23:12:00.008-04:002010-04-21T00:28:38.406-04:00Wasteful, delusional video from the UVA administrationThis year the UVA administration has produced a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pImjokP49TQ">video</a> providing safety tips for UVA students who will be attending <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxfield_Races">Foxfield</a>. This is, of course, a total waste of resources. UVA students are supposedly the smartest people in the state, yet the administration felt the need to instruct UVA students, as a parent might instruct a seven-year-old child, to drink water and wear sunscreen when spending the day outside. What UVA student doesn't know the risks of getting a sunburn, or that it's possible to get a sunburn through a cloud cover? What UVA student doesn't know that alcohol has dehydrating effects?<br /><br />Why waste all these resources distributing such obviously unnecessary advice? It is, of course, a completely delusional attempt by the administration to assert that they have control over the situation, when in fact they don't. Foxfield is sheer, reckless idiocy. Minors know that it is easy to obtain alcohol there. Rather than acknowledge outright the immutable fact of underage drinking, the administration shrieks for authoritarianism as an appropriate response, as if punishment is an effective deterrent, and as if deterrence is somehow the most effective way to make underage students safer, healthier, or happier.<br /><br />The video is a feeble attempt by the administration to demonstrate that they have control when in fact they have little. The administration is attempting to indicate that they're on board with the event, and that they have it under control. They would otherwise be embarrassed to acknowledge that the event is uncontrollable, and contributes to a reputation of drunken idiocy. The unintended message the video conveys is the administration's own powerlessness and embarrassment.<br /><br /><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pImjokP49TQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pImjokP49TQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/oPceId5dmbk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com2http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/04/wasteful-delusional-video-from-uva.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-31956605143503742632010-04-07T22:33:00.002-04:002010-04-07T22:39:04.613-04:00A mystery solvedFor a few months I had been wondering why so many scientific and mathematical academic papers were formatted the same way. It's because <a href="http://www.latex-project.org/">LaTeX</a> is the industry standard. What I thought was Century, available in Microsoft products, is actually <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern">Computer Modern</a>.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/wt_td6nWrdk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com1http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/04/mystery-solved.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-33762736117707695552010-02-01T00:15:00.003-05:002010-02-01T00:43:26.890-05:00This American Life covers college partyingI love <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org">This American Life</a>, so it seemed strange when I found myself unimpressed after listening to their <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1330">episode</a> that chronicled the booze-soaked partying of college students at State College, Pennsylvania, where Penn State University is. Then I realized that as a college student, I'm just so used to the scene that they describe. It's so typical to me as to seem banal, but it actually is <span style="font-style:italic;">interesting</span>. I was a fish who didn't see the water. The episode is no worse than any other. Indeed, it's <span style="font-style:italic;">great</span>, as always, but because it covers a subject so close, listening to it forced me to step back and rediscover how insane this aspect of America really is. An outsider looking at the situation must be fascinated.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/mtOIwqrW07c" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com2http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/02/this-american-life-covers-college.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-17348369130121739032010-01-29T12:17:00.002-05:002010-01-29T12:24:11.304-05:00Why do academics lean left?A topic I've been thinking about <a href="http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-chomsky-and-intellectuals-of-far.html">for a while</a> is why academics lean left. <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/the_ivory_tower.html">Bryan Caplan points to some thoughts</a> about why it's <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> typecasting.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/PgZi_uW4mkU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com1http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-do-academics-lean-left.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-51755966171787848682010-01-25T23:11:00.003-05:002010-01-25T23:47:31.402-05:00International Media Wall in Alderman Library Is Wasteful SignalingAt UVA, Alderman Library has an <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=4176">international media wall</a>. It's a couple of years old. Its stated purpose is to bring an international perspective to the University community. Four prominently located monitors display different non-English news stations.<br /><br />Of course, this is completely wasteful signaling. The administration responsible for the wall wanted to signal that the University community is cosmopolitan and cares about international issues. It doesn't matter to the administration that no one really pays any attention to these monitors; actively watching requires checking out a headset from the circulation desk, and this doesn't really happen. Everything about this is a complete waste. The wall illustrates clearly the drive for pretentious signaling.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/cN8q_DLgA9A" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com1http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2010/01/international-media-wall-in-alderman.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-46423037533935369022009-12-12T01:12:00.004-05:002009-12-12T02:04:11.033-05:00A Few Application Recommendations for the iPhoneI have a few recommendations for applications on the iPhone 3GS. I do this out of love. Certainly no one is paying me to promote these.<br /><br /><b>1</b> <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ustream-live-broadcaster/id319362690?mt=8">Ustream Live Broadcaster</a><br />I've recently set up an account, so I'll be streaming video <a href="http://ustre.am/1WF5">here</a> in the future. So far, I've just playing around with it, but if there is something that I plan to broadcast seriously, I'll announce it, maybe here, or just on Twitter. Right in the application you can tweet to announce when you start, but I would give a heads-up before then as well. This app allows you to save the videos that you broadcast, and send them to YouTube. Also, complementary to this app might be the <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ustream-viewing-application/id301520250?mt=8">Ustream Viewing Application</a>.<br /><br /><b>2</b> <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/netnewswire/id284881860?mt=8">NetNewsWire</a><br />The popular desktop client has a version for the iPhone, and it is quite nice. It allows you to sort through your items from the past 24 hours in chronological order, in one feed. It syncs to Google Reader. Also, you can send items to Instapaper that would be better viewed on a computer later.<br /><br /><b>3</b> <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dragon-dictation/id341446764?mt=8">Dragon Dictation</a><br />This is awesome. The privacy concerns are overrated, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10pogue-email.html?8cir&amp;emc=cir">according to Pogue</a>, so the reviews on the iTunes Store right now don't reflect that it is a great product, revolutionary even. This is the product that has for years always seemed just a few years away. It's finally here.<br /><br /><b>4</b> <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tweetie-2/id333903271?mt=8">Tweetie</a><br />This is currently the best client for Twitter on the iPhone, and it is worth $2.99.<br /><br /><b>5</b> <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yelp/id284910350?mt=8">Yelp</a><br />Everyone knows Yelp, but I call attention to the "monocle," which is pretty cool.<br /><br />Having all these great applications might mean that I am a <a href="http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_pocket/">cyborg</a>.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/eOanYKSNV7Y" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/12/few-application-recommendations-for.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-63675806851384728862009-11-25T14:23:00.006-05:002009-11-25T21:27:31.023-05:00Primitive Political StrategyMegan McArdle <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/there_is_no_a_in_filibuster.php">points to an example of primitive political strategy</a>. This kind of thing seems all too prevalent, especially among progressives. People call for ridiculous, giant institutional change for short-term political goals, and can forget about the fact that those institutions have served useful in protecting other policies that they favor. They compartmentalize. None of this is a surprise if you know that <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html">politics isn't about policy</a>.<br /><br />Calling for this kind of institutional change for short-term goals is a form of the belief that if only the proper people were in charge, policy would be implemented in the best possible way. Never do these folks question why these institutions exist. They might have important functions, you know, such as protecting individual liberty.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/LuuLTBE4dLU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/11/primitive-political-strategy.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-39334708720060036242009-11-17T21:33:00.008-05:002009-11-20T16:30:46.833-05:00Life Experience Should Not Modify Your OpinionWhen I'm debating some controversial topic with someone older than I am, even if I can thoroughly demolish their argument, I am sometimes met with a troubling claim, that perhaps as I grow older, my opinions will change, or that I'll come around on the topic. Implicit in this claim is the assumption that my opinion is based primarily on nothing more than my perception from personal experience.<br /><br />When my cornered opponent makes this claim, it's a last resort. It's unwarranted condescension, because it reveals how wrong their entire approach is. Just by making the claim, they demonstrate that they believe all opinions are based primarily on an accumulation of personal experiences, even their own opinions. Their assumption reveals that they are not Bayesian, and that they intuit that no one is. For not being Bayesian, they have no authority that warrants such condescension.<br /><br />I intentionally avoid presenting personal anecdotes cobbled together as evidence, because I know that projecting my own experience onto a situation to explain it is no evidence at all. I know that I suffer from all sorts of cognitive biases that obstruct my understanding of the truth. As such, my inclination is to rely on academic consensus. If I explain this explicitly to my opponent, they might dismiss academics as unreliable and irrelevant, hopelessly stuck in the ivory tower of academia.<br /><br />Dismiss academics at your own peril. Sometimes there are very good reasons for dismissing academic consensus. I concede that most academics aren't Bayesian because <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/11/why-academics-are-not-bayesian.html/trackback">academia is an elaborate credentialing and status-signaling mechanism</a>. Furthermore, academics have often been wrong. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair">Sokal affair</a> illustrates that entire fields can exist completely without merit. That academic consensus can easily be wrong should be intuitively obvious to an atheist; religious community leaders have always been considered academic experts, the most learned and smartest members of society. Still, it would be a fallacious inversion of an argument from authority to dismiss academic consensus simply because it is academic consensus.<br /><br />For all of academia's flaws, the process of peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, informed by logic, statistics, and regression analysis, offers a better chance at discovering truth than any other institution in history. It is noble and desirable to criticize academic theories, but only as part of intellectually honest, impartial scientific inquiry. Dismissing academic consensus out of hand is primitive, and indicates intellectual dishonesty.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/MYyPDWTdulk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/11/life-experience-should-not-modify-your.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-73375005905383878502009-10-12T23:56:00.001-04:002009-10-12T23:57:21.528-04:00New reason.tv series on Ayn Rand's legacy debuts Novermber 2<script type='text/javascript' src='http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=895'></script><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/k8IO0ugsSGk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-reasontv-series-on-ayn-rands-legacy.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-68571302265128242332009-09-26T19:38:00.001-04:002009-09-26T19:38:22.575-04:00When Cops Play Doctor<script type="text/javascript" src="http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=893"></script><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/uHgc3b2e8Wk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-cops-play-doctor.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-7553839119843059572009-09-10T01:06:00.000-04:002009-09-10T01:07:52.044-04:00Neuroeconomist Paul Zak on Markets and the "Molecule of Love"<script type="text/javascript" src="http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=869"></script><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/KizM33h7KgU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/09/neuroeconomist-paul-zak-on-markets-and.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-18324024160738038672009-09-01T22:35:00.002-04:002009-09-01T22:54:46.052-04:00Address to The Right WayThis evening The Right Way was put on by some conservative and libertarian groups at UVA. It was an information session for people interested in these groups. I made some comments on behalf of the libertarian student group. Here's the text of my speech.<br /><br /><blockquote>So why are we here? We don't really consider ourselves part of the political Right, but our relationship with the Right has been complex. Maybe we're more accurately described as "liberals" because we appreciate and welcome the change and progress that free markets bring from their dynamic processes.<br /><br />Libertarians in America have had a shaky alliance with the Right and the Republican Party for the last few decades. The conservative movement is not often described as heterogenous, but it is. It's full of social conservatives, national security hawks, and economic libertarians. These interests are at odds.<br /><br />We fear that the conservative movement has strayed. Ronald Reagan told Reason Magazine in an interview in 1975, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." We are concerned that conservatives have by and large abandoned a rich intellectual tradition of defending the empowerment of individuals, and lost their focus on individual rights and individual responsibility. The way we see it, conservatives have neglected the positive moral and practical cases for free markets, and unfortunately have let the Left frame economic issues. Resources aren't granted to people from governments. The government can't create wealth, but it can easily confiscate it. So, it's troubling to us that conservative responses have been reactionary. For instance, there's no real market-oriented health care reform on the table today.<br /><br />Libertarians strive for consistency in the way we think about freedom. It doesn't make any sense to us to trust people with firearms but not marijuana. William F. Buckley understood this. We don't care for authoritarian obsessions with individual moral choices. If we're truly advocating individual responsibility, the government has no role to play in legislating personal morality.<br /><br />We understand that free markets lift the poorest in society up more than central planners ever could. Winston Churchill famously said, "for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."<br /><br />Having a free market means that it's silly to waste money by "buying American" when we make more wealth available by purchasing goods and services from abroad for less money. We also understand that free markets include free labor markets, which means that people should be free to move across borders.<br /><br />A free market means that we don't funnel money from taxpayers to reward mismanagement in the private sector. We believe that it is immoral and impractical to use military force to impose our will on the world. Striving to accomplish such an enormous task through government sounds like something the Democrats would attempt, but it too will fail as with all their quixotic attempts to engineer a utopia. We believe that international free markets intertwine the interests of all parties, so these arrangements lead to freedom, prosperity, and peace. We don't pretend that we can offer a utopia like those on the Left, but we can do better with free markets.<br /><br />If you're interested in these ideas, I hope to see you at our events this year. We're excited to have the opportunity to participate in events and activities with the other groups present tonight. Thanks.</blockquote><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/_g6QH9G6hWM" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/09/address-to-right-way.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-24331904941206927882009-08-28T23:54:00.002-04:002009-08-29T00:38:40.071-04:00No Cognitive Dissonance from Bill MoyersIt was fascinating tonight to watch Bill Moyers on Real Time with Bill Maher. He commented how disappointing it is that Obama is becoming entangled in Afghanistan, just as JFK did in Vietnam. Moyers explained that both conflicts were viewed as ventures that were originally regarded as morally justified and well-intentioned, but they would consume more of the nation's resources than was anticipated, and ultimately, more than what was acceptable. He said this right after he called for universal health care.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/Z-Dw8NdR2pE" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-cognitive-dissonance-from-bill.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-88036035615606110572009-08-17T23:05:00.002-04:002009-08-18T00:06:24.461-04:00Private provision of police services in TanzaniaIt has been brought to my attention, by a friend who has lived there and knows the country, that police services in Tanzania are mainly provided privately, by a few competing firms. Corruption is low, <a href="http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/12/21/pay-leeches-more">which is to be expected when there is experimentation on a free market</a>, and these firms <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&lpg=PA47&ots=FDesNKupDO&dq=anarcho-capitalism%20stability&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=&f=false">have not deteriorated into warring gangs</a>. I know very little about Tanzania, so this information is possibly inaccurate, but <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=DF9wsKfDOgQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false">a search on Google turned up an interesting book on the subject</a>. Perhaps this is more evidence for a positive case for market anarchy, like <a href="http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html">medieval Iceland</a>.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/MfwAeIx2AUI" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/08/private-provision-of-police-services-in.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449956219867281294.post-25512002706898668872009-08-08T15:24:00.006-04:002009-08-08T16:19:36.688-04:00Not quite utilitarianismIn a <a href="http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/08/03/more-on-declining-marginal-utility-reply-to-yglesias-and-clarke/">good post</a> defending his <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10351">paper about inequality</a> against two progressive bloggers, Will Wilkinson writes,<br /><blockquote>Most importantly, utilitarianism is false...Like Rawls, I think the fact that utilitarianism is completely indifferent to the question of whether an individual’s income and wealth is or is not a result of exchange according to fair procedures is one of the main reasons it is false. How we came to have what we have matters. Utilitarianism says it doesn’t matter. So utilitarianism is false. As far as I’m concerned, the main reason you can’t just take my TV or take the money out of my wallet and give it to somebody who would get more out of it is that it’s my TV, it’s my money. It’s not yours to redistribute.</blockquote>This surprised and confused me because he recently <a href="http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/19358?in=06:13&amp;out=07:01">paid lip service to John Stuart Mill</a>. I guess I need to read more Mill so that I can understand this apparent contradiction.<br /><br />It seems intuitively correct to me that a true ethical framework cannot be one where a system of violence is implemented to correct for the organic, peaceful actions of people. So, I think Wilkinson's point is totally correct. I suppose this means my position of being strictly deferential to ordinal utility, and not cardinal utility, shouldn't be called utilitarianism. <br /><br />I only respect ordinal utility because, in a Hayekian way, it is not possible, nor in any way meaningful, to compare the value of one person's enjoyment of an activity or good to another person's enjoyment of the same. Have I stumbled upon some new derivation of a theory of natural rights? I doubt it; I'm just fumbling about as I search for ethical truths. I wonder who the intellectual trailblazers are that have advocated for a justification of individual rights by, at least partially, rejecting cardinal utility.<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThePaltryPress/~4/5Vp7fjJ9ego" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Seth Goldinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.com0http://paltrypress.blogspot.com/2009/08/not-quite-utilitarianism.html